<p>SAT != IQ</p>
<p>Writing and grammar are tested, so it can't be an IQ test. Intelligence isn't limited to the language you/others speak.</p>
<p>GPA doesn't matter the most because every school/county/district has a different grading system. A 90 may be an A at your school, but it's a B in mine.</p>
<p>Hazhulkhen might be surprised to learn that many schools don't teach grammar in school, and yet there are many people who do well on the writing section. Reading helps.</p>
<p>As for the SAT, it was actually originally developed as an IQ test... hence the "reasoning test" name. I do not remember my source, but I read it in an SAT prep book once, and I think that's a pretty veritable source. If you didn't notice, the math and english section has many "tricks", which, if you were naturally gifted at reasoning, would be pretty simple to pull off, whereas others might not be able to. Studying circumvents this, but as for original intentions, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it was originally meant for testing intelligence. As for the way it's being used now, well, I have no objections. I don't think I know anyone who is intelligent enough to pull of a very strong score who hasn't been able to with a moderate (not excessive) amount of studying.</p>
<p>Also, language is a critical part of the communication part of the brain, and intelligence definitely factors into being able to communicate accurately in regards to the rules your language sets out. Haha not that I'm doing such a hot job, these sentences I've been writing are terrible.</p>
<p>There have been too many of these threads. This needs to end</p>
<p>the SATs are racist.. who created the SATs? racist white guys, who scores highest on hte SATs...middle class asian chicks. SATs are just a part of a grand plan for old white men with asian fetishes to lay their hands on an asian women! this madness must stop before we have too many muntant babies on our planet/</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, according to that chart, my tested IQ is about 10 points lower than my SAT-IQ. Although I guess that might be the test tricks factor that RisingSun mentioned.</p>
<p>If you look at the chart, you will see that it is based on assuming a particular average IQ for those taking the SAT, setting that as equal to the average SAT score, and then extrapolating. In other words, if you assume a correlation and make up data accordingly, you can come up with a pretty chart.</p>
<p>Reminds me of the technical definition of IQ -- that which is measured by IQ tests. An interesting little book on the entire subject of testing is Banesh Hoffmann, The Tyranny of Testing.</p>
<p>A true story -- my kid's IQ went up over 40 points over the years. She had a language disability (now overcome, so I guess disability isn't the right word ...), which I thought had repressed her scores earlier but psychologists denied as a possibility. They had no explanation as to how her scores could steadily improve. We just stopped having her take the tests (which we could do in pulling her from public school) since they gave us no information. Now, according to the ACT/SAT conversion chart (which is based upon people taking both, rather than assumption) and the SAT/IQ chart, we could add another 30 plus points. Did her innate intelligence really rise over 70 points? Or did she score better as she developed language, and then in particular when we addressed vocabulary and grammar, read challenging books, etc. in homeschooling? I guess you can see why I am an IQ skeptic. </p>
<p>You wonder how if SATs are correlated with IQ, how people could score better on the former with better schools, practice, prep courses and individual study, etc. Also with the recentering of scores and the recent substantive changes to the SAT, I wonder how close the current test is to its original roots.</p>
<p>Anyway, I've probably spent too much time searching around and trying to find something definitive! The most balanced thing I could find was the following sampling of expert opinion. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html</a></p>
<p>"The SAT measures only about 18%, [an] estimate range from 7 to 25%, of the things that it takes to do well in school."</p>
<p>quote from the above article. Think that kinda says it all. There are many variables that contribute to success in college. The SAT measures just a small portion of those. Work ethic, ability to prioritize, determination, to name a few, I would say are much more important. As one of my son's favorite coaches always said "Your heart will take you further than your talent".</p>
<p>Nice article. Although I have to say that the table everyone was referring to is not a good measure. On it, it says that the 50th percentile is around an 880, whereas the average SAT is more like in the range of 1000-1100. That means that this website is very probably wrong. Also, I highly doubt that anyone who has a 1600 M+V has an IQ of 152/155. That's extraordinarily high, and there are much fewer people with an IQ that high than there are 1600s M+V.</p>
<p>Rising Sun, the website takes into account that those who take the SAT are not of average intelligence to begin with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hazhulkhen might be surprised to learn that many schools don't teach grammar in school, and yet there are many people who do well on the writing section. Reading helps.
[/quote]
Hahah, I read books. I did very well on CR. What the SAT wants is not necessarily the style in which all books are written.</p>
<p>it makes me sad when people say that GPA doesn't matter</p>